Thematic Committee

6 - 8 June 2001

4.Improvement and restructuring of spontaneous settlements in Dakar, Senegal

IMPROVEMENT AND RESTRUCTURING OF SPONTANEOUS SETTLEMENTS IN DAKAR, SENEGAL

By the National Habitat Committee

I.INTRODUCTION

Senegal’s rate of urbanisation is one of the highest in Africa, 45% and it changes from one region to another. It will be 56% in 2015. The urban structure is characterised by a phenomenon namely a macrocephalic capital which alone concentrates 54% of the urban population.

Our towns are developing under the combined effect of their own population growth and the drift from the hinterland of populations hoping to find a job. This induces a more acute regional imbalance between the region of Dakar (which has long been favoured by public and private investors) and the rest of the country.

Thus the Senegalese urban framework is dominated by the urban area of Dakar (2 million inhabitants) which remains the economic lung of the country. Nowadays, one Senegalese out of two is a city dweller; one city dweller out of two is living in Dakar.

One of the main consequences of this quick urbanisation is the proliferation of informal neighbourhoods which represent over 30% of the total housing in Senegal. This kind of housing is even more obvious in the urban area of Dakar (about 45%).

In spite of some outstanding progress in terms of urban development, the organisation and the management of towns and cities are becoming increasingly difficult and the majority of city dwellers is still living in informal neighbourhoods. In these insalubrious neighbourhoods, poorly equipped as regards basic urban services, poverty, crowding, unemployment and underemployment are prevailing and are worsened by constraints relating to successive structural adjustments whose effects severely affect populations.

With a view to better influencing the development of towns and cities, through a more flexible planning which involves the different actors, the Government of Senegal initiated, with the support of the German Cooperation Agency (GTZ) a restructuring and land regulation project relating to informal neighbourhoods.

The project which started in 1986 in Dalifort, a neighbourhood of the city of Dakar which stretches out on about 16 hectares for a population of 7,000 inhabitants turned into a programme after 1996 and was enlarged to other neighbourhoods in the cities of Dakar, Bignona, Saint-Louis and Richard Toll, to the benefit of a population estimated at about 350,000 inhabitants.

The project was awarded a prize as a successful practice at the Cities World Summit in Istanbul in 1996 and the Hanover Universal Exhibition in the Year 2000.

Senegal resolutely embarked on a human settlement development process, with priority actions among them poverty alleviation and economic development, in conformity with the Habitat Programme.

II.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME

The approach developed by the Government of Senegal with the support of partners among them the German Cooperation Agency (GTZ) [1] from a technical viewpoint and (KFW)[2] from a financial viewpoint, the French Development Agency (AFD) and the European Development Fund (EDF) is aimed at maintaining the populations that are living in informal neighbourhoods on the site occupied by them and at facilitating their access to land ownership and basic infrastructure, as suggested by the Habitat Programme. The ultimate objective being the improvement of their living environment.

The programme’s output was conclusive and was reflected by:

1. The grouping of those who were allocated plots in “Groupements d’Interêt

Economiques” (GIE)[3] which made possible:

1.1.an increased mobilisation of recipients;

1.2.a climate based on trust, an increased solidarity within the group which strongly improved social cohesion and developed the capital;

1.3.a strengthening of collective decision-making capacities relating to the living environment and good governance;

1.4the setting up of networks of partnerships between these neighbourhoods and other administrative, banking agencies and concessionary companies to establish a sound local economic base.

2. Physical Restructuring of Neighbourhoods and Construction of Basic Infrastructure

and Community Equipment such as:

2.1access roads to Dalifort, Thiaroye, Bignona and Saint-Louis where a 1,360-metre long road-dike, a 16-hectare rehousing area and a dam-lock for a total cost of US$4,000,000 were also achieved.

2.2water conveyance: extension of water supply networks in all the neighbourhoods. This facilitated individual linking-up (which rose from 1% before the implementation of the Project to about 92% today in Dalifort) and the construction of many fire hydrants;

2.3electrification of neighbourhoods (the rate of linking-up to the electricity grid, which did not exist before the implementation of the project reached about 70% in Dalifort in December 2000;

2.4the construction of public elementary schools and health posts;

2.5the setting up of an individual sanitation (septic tanks) and semi-public sanitation (latrines and cesspools) in most of the intervention neighbourhoods, the use of carts drawn by animals for the pre-collection of garbage in the areas inaccessible to garbage collection trucks, and the rehousing of populations from flooded areas.

3. Improvement and Changes noted in Housing

In Dalifort, the percentage of permanent structures rose from 7% to 48%, which reduced the crowding and insecurity in the neighbourhood.

4. Giving a feeling of security pertaining to land to the populations concerned through the issuing of an ownership certificate, “the right to area”[4]. The right to area ensures stability to the recipient who can use the right of enjoyment conferred by this deed to accede to credit. The right to area whose duration may be 50 years, sanctions

the exclusive use of this land for housing purposes. In Dalifort about 60% of recipients paid up the price of their plots of land and in Wakhinane, the percentage is about 30%.

The selling price of the plots of land to the inhabitants of these neighbourhoods is lower than the land market prices. For instance, the cost of the square metre in Dalifort is US$4 [5] compared to US$40 in neighbouring areas. In another neighbourhood such as Wakhinane/Thiaroye, the price of the square metre of land sold to populations is US$1 compared to the land market prices which fluctuate between US$13 and US$17 in the area.

5.Women are involved in the programme’s activities on a equal footing with men. They are full-fledged members of the “Groupements d’intérêt économique” (GIE) of intervention neighbourhoods and are represented in the GIE offices. The percentage of women head of families who benefited from plots of land in the informal neighbourhoods is about 11%. To alleviate the poverty of which they usually are victims, they managed to carry out a number of income-generating individual and/or collective activities (poultry farming, market gardening, small business, arts and crafts, (dyeing, sewing) community micro-projects etc); they set up mutual aid groupings, loan and savings funds (rotating credit schemes necessary for the consolidation of economic activities) and women’s promotion groups. Nowadays, the money generated by the “tontines” and women’s associations is ploughed back in GIEs which ensure a better economic promotion and some financial self-reliance.

6.Economic and Social Development: Informal housing restructuring programmes

have a real impact on poverty alleviation and economic and social development through the improvement of the living environment, access to credit, namely women, access to basic social services and training of populations.

The populations who benefited from to a right to area enjoy some economic security given that this title deed represents a guarantee for someone who is seeking a bank loan for the improvement of his house or his income generating activities.

These results have been achieved thanks to a partnership between the different actors involved (State, local administrative units, non-governmental organisations, grass-root community organisations and international partners) and an efficient participation of target groups (united in GIE) both in terms of participation in the activities and contribution to the costs required for the development of their neighbourhood.

III.PERSPECTIVES

As regards the implementation of the Habitat Programme adopted in 1996 in Istanbul, the experience of these first projects made it possible to identify a number of challenges and needs for an improved effectiveness and the implementation on a larger scale of land restructuring and regulation programmes.

Among these challenges and needs we note the need for:

  • reducing the irregular occupancy of land through the prior development of extension areas such as the Concerted Development Areas (ZAC), cleaned-up plots or reception frames programmes;
  • promoting social housing through the strengthening of cooperative action supported by the “Bureau d’Assistance à l’Habitat social” (BAHSO). Nowadays over 350 housing cooperatives grouping together about 40,000 adherents mobilise savings amounting more or less to US$15 million;
  • ensuring a better performance in the land restructuring and regulation of the neighbourhoods which have not been divided into plots, in a context of decentralisation characterised by the emergence of new actors namely local administrative units;
  • defining a national policy in partnership with the private sector, non-governmental organisations, and the civil society;
  • reducing the duration of interventions by capitalising on previous experiences.

In this prospect and under the Habitat Programme, the State created new instruments among them:

  1. The Fonds national de Restructuration et de Régulation Foncière (FORREF) to receive the populations’ financial contributions for the purchase of plots, with a view to ploughing them back in new projects. It helps ensure the financial replication of the programme hence its durability. The operations eligible for a FORREF funding are development and infrastructure operations, the construction of community equipment, land regulation procedure and population management-related costs within the framework of the restructuring.

FORREF enabled to displace and internally rehouse recipients of plots located in Dakar flooded areas for an approximate cost of US$45,000 in September 2000. FORREF also funded the indemnification of part of the owners of “impenses”[6] (6) in the Keur Massar Rehousing Area, up to US$15,000.

FORREF benefited from US$450,000 State subsidy.

b. The Fondation Droit à la Ville (FDV) which is a private independent operator, provider of services in land restructuring and regulation and poverty alleviation. This Foundation has a utility status since December 2000, to carry out this public interest mission.

The aim of the Foundation is to carry out for the benefit of local administrative units and the State, with the participation of recipient populations, the implementation of restructuring projects and the delegated supervision of work for the development and equipment of the neighbourhoods which have not been divided into plots. It has a US$1,350,000 start-up endowment subscribed by 17 founders divided into 4 categories: the State, local administrative units, the public and private sectors and the organisations and associations specialised in the support to development. It also benefits from the support of KFW and GTZ for an amount of about US$10,000,000.

The Foundation will target Pikine Irrégulier Sud (Dakar) which has a population of 240,000 inhabitants and covers a area of 700 hectares.

c. The Commission nationale de Gestion des Inondations (CNGI) entrusted with preventing and alleviating floods and coordinating the various relevant actions.

IV.REPLICABILITY

Apart from the Foundation’s intervention, the implementation of other projects is under way or consideration to contribute in a noticeable manner to the eradication of urban poverty and the general improvement of the living environment:

  • the Urban Social Development Project implemented by the NGO Enda Tiers Monde et UNESCO in Yeumbeul-Malika between 1996 and 2001. Its aim is poverty alleviation through the strengthening of the capacities of local actors, the development of a partnership between the different actors involved, incentive and support to populations for the improvement of their living environment;
  • the Land Restructuring and Regulation Project of Pikine Guinaw-Rails which lies within the scope of the urban poverty alleviation programme. The funding of the feasibility studies of the project which targets a population of about 150,000 inhabitants and whose supervisor is the City of Pikine, was allocated by UNDP with the support of CNUEH (Habitat);
  • the Development Project of the Gouye Sor Neighbourhood (Ouakam) which covers an area of 6.4 hectares for a population of 1,500 inhabitants. This project whose implementation is under way under the aegis of the City of Dakar is aimed at improving the living environment of populations through sanitation, the construction of equipment and basic infrastructure. Its estimated cost is US$700,000;
  • the Urban Poverty Alleviation Project in the Urban Area of Dakar funded by the French Cooperation Agency (AFD) is aimed at restructuring 20 informal neighbourhoods. The project starts with a test phase covering 5 neighbourhoods for an amount of about US$1,500, 000.

V. CONCLUSION

In Senegal, as in most subsaharan countries, the proliferation of informal neighbourhoods and their management, and urban poverty alleviation still represent major challenges which the government does not succeed in overcoming in a sustainable manner.

The land restructuring, regulation and urban alleviation programme which the Senegalese authorities have been implementing since 1996 has a real positive impact on the improvement of the disadvantaged populations living conditions.

However, given the extent of the phenomenon and the difficulties against which the authorities came up to meet these populations’ increasing demand in housing, utility services and basic infrastructure and in view of the decline in development aid, a viable and effective solution could be found through:

- collaboration with members of Parliament, local authorities and the civil society which has

become stronger since the Istanbul Meeting in 1996;

- facilitation of access to credit for poor households, in particular disadvantaged groups

whose women are the most affected by the damaging effects of poverty;

- the fight against land speculation which reduces the poor groups access opportunities to

land ownership;

- the development and implementation of schemes which make sustainable the populations’

involvement in programmes/projects aimed at improving their living environment;

- the development of economic activity zones to alleviate poverty;

- a genuine financial support to restructuring by local administrative units, in partnership with

grass-root actors (associations, non-governmental organisations…).

AMELIORATION ET RESTRUCTURATION DE

L’HABITAT SPONTANE A DAKAR

Par le Comité National pour l'Habitat

  1. INTRODUCTION

Le Sénégal connaît l’un des taux d’urbanisation les plus élevés d’Afrique, 45%, variant d’une région à une autre. Il serait de 56% en 2015. La structure urbaine est caractérisée par un phénomène de macrocéphalie de la capitale nationale qui concentre, à elle seule, 54% de la population urbaine.

Nos villes se développent sous les effets combinés de leur propre croissance démographique et de l’exode des populations de l’arrière pays attirées par l’espoir de trouver du travail. Cela induit un déséquilibre régional plus aigu entre la région de Dakar (longtemps privilégiée par les investissements publics et privés) et le reste du pays.

L’armature urbaine sénégalaise se trouve ainsi dominée par l’agglomération de Dakar (2 millions d’habitants) qui reste le poumon économique du pays. Aujourd’hui, un sénégalais sur deux est urbain; un urbain sur deux est dakarois.

L’une des principales conséquences de cette urbanisation rapide est la prolifération des quartiers d’occupation spontanée qui représente plus de 30% de l’habitat total au Sénégal. Cette forme d’habitat est encore plus manifeste dans l’agglomération de Dakar (45% environ).

En dépit de quelques progrès notables en matière d’aménagement urbain, l’organisation et la gestion urbaine deviennent de plus en plus critiques et la majorité des citadins vit encore dans des quartiers irréguliers. Dans ces quartiers insalubres, sous équipés et mal desservis par les services urbains de base, règnent la pauvreté, la promiscuité, l’insécurité, le chômage et le sous emploi rendus encore plus ardus par les contraintes de plans d’ajustements structurels successifs dont les effets sont durement ressentis par les populations.

Pour mieux influencer le développement des villes, par le biais d’une planification plus souple qui implique les différents acteurs, le gouvernement du Sénégal a initié, avec l’appui de la Coopération Allemande (GTZ), un projet de restructuration et de régularisation foncière des quartiers d’occupation spontanée.

Le projet qui a démarré en 1986 à Dalifort, un quartier de la ville de Dakar qui s’étend sur 16 hectares environ pour une population de 7 000 habitants a été érigé en programme après 1996 et étendu à d’autres quartiers des villes de Dakar, Bignona , Saint-Louis et Richard Toll, au profit d’une population estimée à environ 350 000 habitants.

Le projet a été primé comme pratique réussie lors du Sommet Mondial des Villes à Istanbul en 1996 et à l’Exposition Universelle de Hanovre en l’an 2000.

Conformément au Programme pour l’Habitat, le Sénégal s’est résolument engagé dans un processus de développement des établissements humains, avec des axes prioritaires parmi lesquels la lutte contre la pauvreté et le développement économique.

  1. DESCRIPTION DU PROGRAMME

L’approche développée par le Gouvernement du Sénégal avec le concours de partenaires dont la coopération allemande (GTZ[7]) au plan technique et (KFW[8]) au plan financier, l’Agence Française de Développement (AFD) et le Fonds Européen de Développement (FED), a pour but de maintenir les populations qui habitent les quartiers irréguliers sur le site qu’elles occupent et de faciliter leur accès à la propriété foncière et aux infrastructures de base, comme suggéré par le Programme pour l’Habitat. L’objectif final étant l’amélioration de leur cadre de vie.

Le programme a eu des résultats probants qui se sont traduits par:

1. L’organisation des bénéficiaires de parcelles en Groupements d’Intérêt Economique (GIE[9]) qui a permis:

1.1.une plus grande mobilisation des bénéficiaires ;

1.2.l’installation d’un climat de confiance, une plus grande solidarité de groupe qui a renforcé fortement la cohésion socialeet développé le capital social ;

1.3.un renforcement des capacités de décision collective concernant le cadre de vieet de bonne gouvernance ;

1.4.un développement de réseaux de partenariat entre ces quartiers et les autres structures administratives, bancaires, et les sociétés concessionnaires pour fonder une solide base économique locale.

  1. La restructuration physique des quartiers et la réalisation d’infrastructures de base et d’équipements communautaires comme:

2.1. des voies d’accèsà Dalifort, Thiaroye, Bignona et Saint-Louis où ont été également réalisés une voie-digue de 1360 mètres linéaires, une zone de recasement de 16 ha et un barrage-écluse pour un coût total de US $ 4.000.000.

2.2. l’adduction d’eau: extension des réseaux d’adduction dans l’ensemble des quartiers. Ce qui a facilité les branchements individuels (qui sont passés de 1% avant l’intervention du Projet à près de 92% aujourd’hui à Dalifort) et la réalisation de nombreuses bornes fontaines;

2.3. l’électrification des quartiers (le taux de branchement à l’électricité, inexistant au démarrage du projet, est passé à Dalifort à 70% environ en Décembre 2000);